Income disparity? Tim Cook's sweet 378 million 2011 salary..

...you don't have to 'justify' your comments to me and Apple's stockholders don't have to 'justify' their CEO salaries to you.
If you are going to make comments..try to make sense...
Not sure which part of 'justify = stupid' you don't understand...
...we can hijack this thread and switch the discussion to average incomes, but we'd have to stick with reality though...
...Given the income disparity in this country..and given the power that wealth buys..it's a problem. There's been an erosion of the rights and wages of the average joe..and that's directly tied to the influence corporate cash has in politics.
Ah, so we all agree now that justifying someone else's wages is stupid and we're now switching the thread to income inequality. Good. I like income inequality because trying to make incomes equal is stupid. We all agree on that too don't we?

You're making some sort of argument that shareholders have a say in salaries. That's absurd. And income inequality is fine. I'm not for equal incomes. But they should be in line with performance..and not at the expense of the company or labor. A company should never put up they can't afford a benefit..then pay one fellow a salary which equals the combined salary of every other employee under him. We have an executive to employee income ratio of something like 470:1. No executive has the right to extract all the wealth out of any capitalistic endeavor simply because they want it.
 
Does 'vest' mean he can't sell them until then?

If so, worry not. The book value of this package is closer to 80 million, and I don't think the hype is going to continue for 4 more years, let alone 9 more years. He'll likely cash out for a lot more than $80 million, but nothing approaching $378 million.

Depends.

In any case..what exactly does this guy do to justify a salary like that? What value does he add to the company?

He employs a lot of Chinese to make his products. "Race to the bottom" Its the capitalist (Republican) way :)

Actually, the reality is that it is liberal employment laws that drive companies to manufacture abroad. But please don't let reality get in the way of your bullshit.

Companies have the right to set up wherever they so choose. If the US cannot offer them the same incentives that other countries can, then that is something our Government should address.

And, of course, the fact that Americans will not pay premium prices to ensure that the products they buy are produced in this country.... that is a huge part of the problem.

Again, the reality is that it is not the 'Republicans' fault.... much as you might want it to be.
 
...the income disparity in this country..and given the power that wealth buys..it's a problem...
...I like income inequality...
...income inequality is fine...
Glad that's settled.
...We have an executive to employee income ratio of something like 470:1. No executive has the right to extract all the wealth out of any capitalistic endeavor simply because they want it.
What, you like inequality but you want it to be only a little bit unequal? That's like hearing your girlfriend say she's only a little bit pregnant.
 
People need to get a sense of perspective about why companies outsource. When China was the main target of outsourcing, the prevailing Chinese manufacturing wage was approximately 1/10 of the American NON-UNION counterpart. It was an even smaller fraction of union scale, of course, but when you're talking about a company saving 90% of its labor costs by moving overseas, the difference between union and non-union wages becomes quite trivial.

In fact, all posited reasons for the tendency of companies to move their operations to third world countries, other than cheap labor, are trivial and inconsequential. You can see this by hypothesizing the most extreme correction of any other proposed cause.

Taxes? If we reduced the entire tax burden of corporations to zero, it would still be cheaper to outsource.

Regulations? Ditto -- get rid of literally ALL regulations, and it's still cheaper to outsource.

Unions? See above.

Minimum wage? Considering that Americans working for third-world wages would be literally incapable of feeding themselves, that makes no difference either. Besides, there are no minimum-wage manufacturing jobs.

Given the incredible gap in wages between here and third-world countries, it's safe to say that any job that can be outsourced will be outsourced. The only jobs that will remain here are ones that can't be outsourced. That includes many service jobs, the highest-end manufacturing work, construction work which has to be done on-site, and others.

And since a job can't be outsourced (otherwise it would be), there's no downside to providing the best wages, benefits, and working conditions we can.
 
What income disparity?



BAU baby!

Does 'vest' mean he can't sell them until then?

If so, worry not. The book value of this package is closer to 80 million, and I don't think the hype is going to continue for 4 more years, let alone 9 more years. He'll likely cash out for a lot more than $80 million, but nothing approaching $378 million.

Depends.

In any case..what exactly does this guy do to justify a salary like that? What value does he add to the company?

That's between him and the board of directors and none of your business.
 
Taxes? If we reduced the entire tax burden of corporations to zero, it would still be cheaper to outsource.

of course thats pure liberal lunacy, to be polite. 100 million jobs are still here despite the high wages here and low wages in Vietnam.

Decisions are made on the margin. If the marginal tax goes up here x % will move. If it goes down y % will stay or come back.

It is truly astounding what is over a liberals head. A liberal has learned this lesson 20 times but will forget it again in a week. This is typical of liberalism.
 
What income disparity?

Apple CEO Cook pay could lead in 2011 with $378 million pay package due to restricted stock
By Associated Press, Published: January 9 | Updated: Tuesday, January 10, 1:00 AM
LOS ANGELES — Tim Cook could well end up being the highest paid CEO in America in 2011, after Apple Inc. granted him a million restricted stock units last August for taking the reins shortly before co-founder Steve Jobs died.

An Associated Press review of a securities filing shows Cook’s pay package was valued at $378 million. The vast majority came in a grant of a million restricted stock units worth $376 million at the time. Half of the stock units will vest in August 2016, the other half in August 2021.
Apple CEO Cook pay could lead in 2011 with $378 million pay package due to restricted stock - The Washington Post

BAU baby!

Where is OWS? They aren't going to camp out in Silicon Valley and bitch and cry? Or does Apple get a pass since they all have Macs and iPhones.
 
What income disparity?...
Where is OWS? They aren't going to camp out in Silicon Valley and bitch and cry? Or does Apple get a pass since they all have Macs and iPhones.
So Occupy Wall Street isn't fighting for income equality. That's no surprise because they're not fighting for welfare policy either because they're not 'occupying' Washington. Nor are they fighting Wall Street or they'd be saying just what it was they wanted Mr. Wall Street to start doing.

Not sure what they want, but they're sure having fun wanting it though...
 
OBVIOUSLY we cannot have capitalism if some people don't have enough excess cash to be capitalists.

So wealth inequity is absolutely necessary for our economic system to work.

But we can have far too much wealth inequity and that is, I think, a large part of the problem this economy is now facing.

It really doesn't matter if the wealthy have much wealth, but it does matter if the middle class doesn't have enough because the wealthy got too much of the middle class's.

And that is exactly what has been happening for the last 40 years.
 
OBVIOUSLY we cannot have capitalism if some people don't have enough excess cash to be capitalists.

So wealth inequity is absolutely necessary for our economic system to work.

But we can have far too much wealth inequity and that is, I think, a large part of the problem this economy is now facing.

It really doesn't matter if the wealthy have much wealth, but it does matter if the middle class doesn't have enough because the wealthy got too much of the middle class's.

And that is exactly what has been happening for the last 40 years.

How exactly has a wealthy person taken your money
 
How exactly has a wealthy person taken your money

When exactly did it become about HIS money?

I can tell you how wealthy people have taken MANY PEOPLE'S money. Whether they have taken mine, or his, is none of your business.
 
...we cannot have capitalism if some people don't have enough excess cash to be capitalists...
--but we can have private enterprise where free people create wealth and use it as capital to create more wealth. "Capitalism" is just not a very good word for describing free enterprise.
 
How exactly has a wealthy person taken your money
When exactly did it become about HIS money...
People create wealth by writing a book, painting a picture, or thinking up a valuable new idea. They have a right to that wealth and if they decide to trade those goods for money it rightfully should be their money.

OK, we got lot's of loony lefties saying nobody creates the wealth in the world, that it's always been around since caveman times and that the rich are just the faster grabbers. We all know that notion is stupid. The world's wealth has been constantly increasing over the decades and centuries and that increase is the result of hard work that merits the bounty it brings about.
 

Forum List

Back
Top